This appeal arises from the decision dated 9-8-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8 Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. The prayer made in the grievance petition reads as under :- "In view of the above submissions it is respectfully prayed that the order of the respondents dated 8-7-1981 be declared as without any lawful authority, illegal, without jurisdiction and mala fide and the same be set aside. It is further prayed that back benefits occurring to the petitioner since from his promotion i, e.: 15-3-1980, be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner."
2. The appellant claimed that he was promoted as Quality Assistant vide order Exh. P-1 dated 17-3- 1980 with effect from 15-3-1980 and had taken duty as such and that as he could not prevail upon his father who too is an employee of the respondent, to vacate the quarter allotted to him, order of promotion was withdrawn vide order Exh. P-2 dated 8-7-1981. The case of the respondent is that neither the appellant was ever promoted as Quality Assistant, nor any order of promotion was withdrawn and that both the orders, Exhs. P-1 and P-2 are forged documents. To show that the appellant was promoted as Quality Assistant the learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to Exhs. P-3, P-5 and P-6. He has argued that Exhs. P-3 and P-5 are signed by the appellant and he has described himself as Quality Assistant therein. On Exh. P-3 the words "Q Ch/Q.
Asstt" are printed and the words "Q. Ch" are cancelled with pen ink. In Exh. P-5 below the signatures the words "Q. Asstt." ace printed. This is not proved if Exhs. P-3 and P-5 bear the signatures of the appellant. The appellant did not say that these documents bear his signatures. These are loose papers If they had been original then they would have come from proper custody. Such blank forms can be removed from the office and filled in easily. If they had been summoned and produced by the custodian of the record, they could have evidentiary value. The signatures of other officers appearing on Exh. P-5 too were not proved. So far as Exh. P-6 is concerned its signatory was not produced to say that the letters Q. A. C. Q. C. Were written by him: The possibility cannot be excluded that the said letters were not written by the Deputy Chief Accountant and they have been obtained by someone unauthorisedly afterwards. It has also been argued that the appellant was never given the pay of the post of Quality Assistant and the bill of March, 1980 was summoned but was not produced. It is said that bill for the month of March, 1980 was prepared for the post of Quality Assistant but was not drawn. Since pay was not charged against the post of Quality Assistant, the bill would not have, even if produced, advanced the case of the appellant. Leave applications of the appellant Exhs. R-I to R-13 from 27-3-1980 to 20-3-1980 have been produced by the respondent , wherein the appellant described him as Quality Checker and not as Quality Assistant. T. A. Bill of the appellant dated 3-4-1980 is Exb. P-14 in which he described himself as quality checker.
3. Letter Exh. P-1 has not been proved to have been signed and issued by the authority who, according to the appellant, had signed it. P. W. 1, no doubt, states that it was bearing the signatures of Colonel Imdad Ali, but he did not say that he had been seeing him writing and signing. In cross-- -examination he said that Mr. Imdad Ali had not signed Exs. P-1 and P-2 in his presence. He also said that the office of Mr. Imdad Ali was at a distance of two furlongs from his working place. So Exhs. P-1 and P-2 were not proved to have been signed by Mr. Imdad Ali, and thus these documents have no evidentiary value.
4. Even if the prayer of the appellant is accepted, he cannot gain any--thing because he prays that the order Exh. P-2 be declared as illegal. Since Exh. P-1 has not been proved, declaring Exh. P-2 as illegal would be futile because by Exh. P-2 order, promotion order is alleged to have been with drawn. In the above discussed circumstances the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed.
5. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal fails and is thus dismissed.